Quote:
Originally Posted by tovangar2
I dunno b b, but living in London for years (with plenty of stays on the Continent), I've seen the repointing of brick buildings any number of times. If brick buildings only lasted 40 years because the mortar had turned to sand (I've seen it, it runs/pours out), what would be the point of building in brick? Repointing is SOP in Europe. A lot of companies specialize in it, so prices are competitive. My in-laws had their home done. The previous owners had let it go and the bricks were starting to settle together, but the repointing crew didn't seem to have any trouble saving the house. It's just part of maintenance. Older buildings get repointed multiple times over a few hundred years. And in the UK there's the added problem of rising damp, which plays havoc with the mortar.
http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk
I'm not an engineer like you. Can you explain to me why buildings are tossed out here when the mortar goes? What about the 100-year-old buildings on Spring Street? How are they holding together? There's obviously something I'm not understanding. Thx
And thx for the brick link :-) |
Keep in mind we’re talking about LAUSD….if the only reason they entertained the thought of keeping the tower was probably pressure from the public, especially alumni (it’s the same pressure that in the early 50’s got Polytechnic closed not Belmont). Anyway it was no secret that the mortar was bad, particularly in the tower. It’s my belief that the plan was to remove the “Campanile” no matter what, and the bad mortar was the excuse needed. The alternative was not only to repoint the joints, but also boost the structural integrity (remember the bracing on the corner of the open top). And of course all we got out of the principal in 1968 was his version of the reasons for taking it down. Did he know the whole reason…maybe…..maybe not. Let’s face it, there was little if any effort to save some of the beautiful old school buildings, LAHS is the best example. Much easier to replace them with a factory.